True criticism should be complex & interesting in itself. The touchstone for me is the London Review of Books. Eccentric, erudite, unpredictable takes that are often essays in their own right as much as they are reviews / critiques
100% agree. Critics need to bring context, history, philosophy, and understanding to the table. That’s what makes their work, when done well, so valuable.
I think they got famous around the time that stomp, clap, hey was at its peak, so I wonder if it was a commercial decision to separate themselves from the Mumford and Sons and Of Monsters and Men.
Having been in Imagine Dragons' target demographic (11-year-old boy) when they broke out, I can recall that their earlier stuff was a mix of stuff in the stomp-and-holler genre, stuff that predicted their later crap, and attempts to rip off Coldplay
well, i don’t disagree with your points per se, but this essay along with klaus’ indicates id receive a lot of pushback. i like all of your bullet points as to what makes a person cultured and have good taste. i kind of feel like it’s at odds with the other points you make. also, i think there is a clear difference (to me, anyways) between discerning something to be good or not and enjoying it. i can know something is bad but still like it, and know something is good but not like it, which renders taste inert as long as you know how to do both. basically i can make a case for ANYTHING to be good or bad, so i try to focus on what i enjoy rather than point out things I don’t, which in my opinion helps no one. idk i feel very wrong about this but i think it’s the truth
No, I'm totally with you. I think I touch on that here:
"Also, part of enjoying art and entertainment is just engaging with the material on its terms; in many instances, when something is dismissed as vapid or lacking complexity, it’s because that person was seeking qualities and traits found in one genre that don’t necessarily translate to another. For example, if I’m listening to a rock album in search of the same kind of revolutionary melody and harmony that would be found in a John Coltrane record, I’d be disappointed, but substance can be found in so many other aspects of the medium."
For example, I enjoyed "Top Gun: Maverick" way more than I expected, but I wouldn't say it's "great" cinema. It's a dumb, epic action movie that isn't trying to be anything other than what it is, and I can appreciate it for what it is. Or, I'll use "Harry Potter" as another example. I didn't care much for the books, but I had fun watching the movies with my girlfriend. There's nothing "wrong" with enjoying those movies as an adult looking for a dose of childhood nostalgia, but if that's the extent of your movie curiosity, I'd encourage you to broaden your horizons and find something a little more challenging.
I'm also not above a good binge of "Vanderpump Rules," as it brings me back to my time living in LA and running into 1,000 Tom Sandovals.
well, I guess what I am saying is rather than expand your curiosity, you can delve deeper into those things. you can view Harry Potter as a modern christ analogy within the tradition of western tropes; you can view Vanderpump rules as field documentary on workplace social relations. everything can be high brow -- if you make it. which I suppose it what you are saying about poptimists and your frustrations with them. i guess i just dont care about that. trashing something is just the opposite side of that coin, both are just engagement bait, which goes back to the point I made about ignoring things that are not good. it simply leaves us the problem of: what to talk about?
I mean, yeah, for regular people, it's probably healthy to not spend all day online going out of their way to trash something. Like, I've made passing comments about "Ted Lasso" or "Imagine Dragons," but unless my newsletter turns into a full-time paying job, I'm not spending hours engaging with and writing about shows and music I don't like.
But I want professional critics to stick their necks out and trash pop culture when it's deserved, otherwise they're just doing glorified PR for major labels and studios. If publications have to take a journalist's name off a byline for an article criticizing Taylor Swift out of fear that her fans will send them death threats, that is a fandom and behavior that should be rightfully mocked and shamed.
It's probably my favorite Jack White solo album after "No Name."
"Blunderbuss" and "Lazaretto" definitely have their highlights, but they felt like he was delivering what people expect from Jack White. "Boarding House Reach" felt like a turning point for him where he finally let loose.
True criticism should be complex & interesting in itself. The touchstone for me is the London Review of Books. Eccentric, erudite, unpredictable takes that are often essays in their own right as much as they are reviews / critiques
100% agree. Critics need to bring context, history, philosophy, and understanding to the table. That’s what makes their work, when done well, so valuable.
great article, man. related, there is one song by Imagine Dragons called "time to begin" that is totally unrepresentative of their catalog.
Thank you!
And, Jesus, you're right. I've heard this song a bunch and assumed it was a millennial folk band. Would've never guessed this was Imagine Dragons.
I wonder if they started as a stomp/clap/hey band and they were changed into whatever they are now by a record label.
I think they got famous around the time that stomp, clap, hey was at its peak, so I wonder if it was a commercial decision to separate themselves from the Mumford and Sons and Of Monsters and Men.
Having been in Imagine Dragons' target demographic (11-year-old boy) when they broke out, I can recall that their earlier stuff was a mix of stuff in the stomp-and-holler genre, stuff that predicted their later crap, and attempts to rip off Coldplay
I just know Believer and Radioactive and it just filled me with visceral anger
Yeah, "Radioactive" was from the same album as "It's Time"
damn you've successfully stopped me from posting my next essay.
What was yours going to be on?
well, i don’t disagree with your points per se, but this essay along with klaus’ indicates id receive a lot of pushback. i like all of your bullet points as to what makes a person cultured and have good taste. i kind of feel like it’s at odds with the other points you make. also, i think there is a clear difference (to me, anyways) between discerning something to be good or not and enjoying it. i can know something is bad but still like it, and know something is good but not like it, which renders taste inert as long as you know how to do both. basically i can make a case for ANYTHING to be good or bad, so i try to focus on what i enjoy rather than point out things I don’t, which in my opinion helps no one. idk i feel very wrong about this but i think it’s the truth
No, I'm totally with you. I think I touch on that here:
"Also, part of enjoying art and entertainment is just engaging with the material on its terms; in many instances, when something is dismissed as vapid or lacking complexity, it’s because that person was seeking qualities and traits found in one genre that don’t necessarily translate to another. For example, if I’m listening to a rock album in search of the same kind of revolutionary melody and harmony that would be found in a John Coltrane record, I’d be disappointed, but substance can be found in so many other aspects of the medium."
For example, I enjoyed "Top Gun: Maverick" way more than I expected, but I wouldn't say it's "great" cinema. It's a dumb, epic action movie that isn't trying to be anything other than what it is, and I can appreciate it for what it is. Or, I'll use "Harry Potter" as another example. I didn't care much for the books, but I had fun watching the movies with my girlfriend. There's nothing "wrong" with enjoying those movies as an adult looking for a dose of childhood nostalgia, but if that's the extent of your movie curiosity, I'd encourage you to broaden your horizons and find something a little more challenging.
I'm also not above a good binge of "Vanderpump Rules," as it brings me back to my time living in LA and running into 1,000 Tom Sandovals.
well, I guess what I am saying is rather than expand your curiosity, you can delve deeper into those things. you can view Harry Potter as a modern christ analogy within the tradition of western tropes; you can view Vanderpump rules as field documentary on workplace social relations. everything can be high brow -- if you make it. which I suppose it what you are saying about poptimists and your frustrations with them. i guess i just dont care about that. trashing something is just the opposite side of that coin, both are just engagement bait, which goes back to the point I made about ignoring things that are not good. it simply leaves us the problem of: what to talk about?
"everything can be high brow -- if you make it." Funny you say that lol...
https://thatguyfromtheinternet.substack.com/p/the-bachelor
I mean, yeah, for regular people, it's probably healthy to not spend all day online going out of their way to trash something. Like, I've made passing comments about "Ted Lasso" or "Imagine Dragons," but unless my newsletter turns into a full-time paying job, I'm not spending hours engaging with and writing about shows and music I don't like.
But I want professional critics to stick their necks out and trash pop culture when it's deserved, otherwise they're just doing glorified PR for major labels and studios. If publications have to take a journalist's name off a byline for an article criticizing Taylor Swift out of fear that her fans will send them death threats, that is a fandom and behavior that should be rightfully mocked and shamed.
I should revisit Boarding House Reach...
It's probably my favorite Jack White solo album after "No Name."
"Blunderbuss" and "Lazaretto" definitely have their highlights, but they felt like he was delivering what people expect from Jack White. "Boarding House Reach" felt like a turning point for him where he finally let loose.